KJO Controversy - 02/23/2004

Dear Ben Rast,
I am a KJV only christian, and no we do not have the original autographs, BUT, God said that He would preserve his word,and God can and will keep his promise, and He is capable of having an infallible translation for all of us, and the KJV has been proven trustworthy for nearly 400 years. Regardless of what some people believe, King James was not a homosexual, for he was a godly man who got together about 50 holy men of God or maybe only 47, I forget, and they were the linquistic scholars of their day, and they gathered the majority Hebrew and Greek manuscrips, over 5000 copies of each, compared to the 45 greek manuscrips by immoral men. Great preachers of the past such as Charles Haddon Spurgin, Charles Finney, D.L. Moody, Johnathan Edwards, R.A. Torrey, Lester Roloff, Billy Sunday etc. all preached from the KJV. It has brought more people to Christ, it has brought more genuine revivals, and as I understand, Abraham Lincoln read from it. It has done the job, and we don't need other versions. What is the purpose of all these other versions anyway? Money, since the bible is the best selling book, and it is a very profitable thing, and also, all theses versions cause confusion which the devil wants, and contrary to what some people say, some of these other versions are not easier to understand, since the NIV was written at a 9th grade reading level, and the KJV is at a 5th grade level, and the NIV omits over 60,000 words, and they may not have been in the "original" greek manuscrips {45} but those words were in the majority manuscrips {over 5000}. I forget how many times the words "Christ", "blood", "repent", are left out of the NKJV. I know because I have a NKJV, and a NIV, and I borrowed an RSV, and an ASB, and checked them out, and read some other versions on the internet. Even if there are some errors in the KJV, which I doubt, but if there are, they're not serious enough to cause problems. Did you ever read "New Age Bible Versions" by Gail Riplinger? If you didn't, you should. Remember, Satan is real and would LOVE to attack God's word, which is something he has been doing since Genesis chapter 3, and he would LOVE to cause confusion. I've heard people say that the KJV is too archaic, well, God is archaic, and so is holiness. Jesus Christ is archaic. God won't change to suit us. The fact that the devil is real, should be enough proof that there is something wrong with those other versions, because if I were the devil, and thank God I'm not, but if I was, I would want to corrupt God's word and cause confusion and debate. Every christian should have enough sense to realize that, and not be ignorant of the devils devices. I know in my heart that he would LOVE to corrupt the word of God. Since he can't get rid of God's word, he can at least corrupt it. We need to, "........ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein......" {Jerimiah 6:16}, and we need to ".........earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." {Jude 3}, in other words, stick to THE BOOK {KJV}. If the KJV isn't the infallible true word of God, well, those other versions sure aren't the remedy. Just think, the KJV never caused any problems for christians, never hurt anybody, but all these other versions since they came out are causing problems. We had a bible {kjv} no problem, we have "bibles" problems. Think about it. In closing, we don't need other versions at all. One more thing, you need to study the KJV more closely, or if you check out those perversions, you need to study more closely, because the bible does not teach a pre-trib. rapture, it might be in one of those perversions, but not the KJV, not a pre-trib. BODILY rapture anyway,not to sound smart or cocky. I do enjoy your site.
In Christ


Hi Alan. Thanks for writing. We're glad you enjoy the site. First, let me say that it appears you didn't fully read our article on the KJO Controversy. Otherwise, you would know we have no problems with the KJV, nor with people using it. Jen and I each have a KJV that we use regularly. You would also know that we made no allegations regarding the sexual preferences of King James.

Second, you made numerous erroneous contentions. If you read the article, you'll see that the studies show that KJV comprehension requires a 12th grade reading level, NASB 11th, and NIV a 7.8. I don't know where you got your numbers, but they are wrong. The article clearly and truthfully accounts for the so-called ommissions from modern translations as well, and shows they are, in fact, KJV additions. The earliest and best manuscripts support that. The KJO argument accepts that the later manuscripts are somehow better, and also accepts the inclusion of the Apocrypha into the 1611 KJV. Your story regarding the means of translation of the KJV is also erroneous. The early manuscripts that you complain about were not even discovered until decades and even centuries AFTER the 1611 KJV went to press. History is on our side in this regard. Finally, if you want to contend that the KJV was infallible, then why was the Apocrypha initially included? Why were so many mistakes made in the early editions, requiring corrections in subsequent editions. I do agree that God will preserve His word, because He promised He would (a promise I read in my NIV, so please forgive me). When we compare the KJV, NIV, NASB, we'll find they differ in about 1 percent of the text, and no doctrinal issues are at stake in those portions. Therefore, I feel confident we do have the Word of God. If you had read our article, you would have seen that the KJV translators even encouraged people to use a variety of translations. God promises preservation of His Word in several locations in the Bible. Those promises were originally written in Greek and Hebrew. Why would they refer only to a Bible written many centuries later in a language that didn't exist at the time? Are you saying God's Word was not preserved in the earliest copies made? Is God then a liar?

I have more questions. What doctrinal issues are lost in the NIV and NASB that are included in the KJV. What makes them "perversions"? I have an NIV and a KJV, have studied both indepth, and cannot for the life of me find what doctrinal issues are perverted in the modern translations. Another question I have, is what is your position on my Arabic New Testament, or the Bible translated into other languages. Are they not the Word of God? If not, then does God prefer the English language somehow? Also, please remember, the KJV translators were in favor of modern translations. Why aren't you?

You gave a list of evanglists who used the KJV. First of all, let me say that it doesn't matter to me whether they used KJV, NIV, or NASB, for I believe that all are the Word of God. But let me address something for the sake of intellectual honesty. Most of the men in your list had ministries 100 to 250 years before the publication of the first NASB and NIV (mid-1970's). The only one on your list who was still alive when those modern translations were published was Roloff, who was in his mid-60's at the time. Had they all had access to the NIV or NASB, they may still have preferred the KJV, but they never had the chance to make that choice.

Alan, it is my contention that there are no key doctrines lost in the modern translations. That being so, why must you toe such a hard line that only causes needless strife within the body of Christ? Your position is needlessly hostile and baseless. I don't care whether you prefer KJV or NIV or NASB. I hold them all as the Word of God. However, your stand creates an idol out of the Word of God as written in the 1600's, and fails to honor the Living Word of God (Jesus) who lives forever. That's just some food for thought. Please read the article on the KJO controversy, then feel free to respond to this email. Regardless of what you do, I pray the Lord will bless you and keep you.

In Christ,

Ben and Jennifer Rast
Contender Ministries